Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
The superstring theory is widely accepted. The resonance aspect comports with what I believe to be true, spiritually speaking. OTOH, the number of dimensions has always been troubling to me, simply because I feel it ought more elegant than that (LOL!) Fermilab on the search for extra dimensions
Here is a consortium working on the frontier: Space-Time-Matter Consortium. I've been following their work for years:
These as well are great points. I am beginning to see your logic as well, though I don't agree with everything you say, it is very interesting.
I see that you believe that all life (human in this case) has objective value. I agree that human life is unique and, dare I sound cliche, precious. But their does exist subjective value as well. You say that those that think this way scare you because this is the thought process of fascists, slave-traders, and Stalin. The opposite can be expressed towards anybody who holds that life is perfectly objective. This leads down towards the path of pure socialism (not Stalinesque sociopathic-socialism). All are objectively worthy and therefore we should pool all resources for the betterment of all equal brothers? How can we ever support a war if the people we are fighting are just as important and valuable as we are? I don't think you are properly explaining your theories on the connection between subjective value of human life and moral relativism. I don't think you necessarily have to be a moral relativist if you value human life subjectively. I can value the life of a German less than an American, and a Pakistani less than a German (hypothetically, of course). I can value the life of my neighbor less than the life of my brother. Morality does not immediately go out the window at that point. That low line objective value (that I see and almost agree with you on) must also come into play, that we are all human beings under the same objective morality (Ahhh!) and must respect each other if everybody is playing by these objective rules... Once you break those rules, than I will treat you like the inferior dog that you are!!! Just kidding, I wanted to end with dramatic effect. Might be total drivel, but I'm on the fly here.
Yes, B. Rabbit. This was a major concern of the Framers, who had the European experience of the horrific religious violence and warfare of the 16th century vividly in mind: Monarchs kept "establishing" the religious sect of their preference as the "national church," and all the folks not in the "official" church were often persecuted, exterminated, church property seized, etc. The Framers sought to make sure that could never happen in America.
On the bright side, the ensuing religiously-motivated emigration (e.g., the English Puritans, et al.) to the shores of the New World made for the birth of the American nation.
So it is not at all surprising that the first phrase of the First Amendment's religion clause forbids Congress to establish a state church. Yet the second phrase, it seems to me, does not banish God from the public square. Indeed, in the early Republic, there were many national days of public thanksgiving declared -- the thanks being given expressly understood to be thanks to God.
Turning it around, I don't share your optimism.
Good grief. Talk about egotistic.
1. Nowhere in any founding document is the term "separation of church and state" mentioned. Nowhere. -you
2. ALL of the discussion and concern had to do with protecting religion and the people from the government!-you again
3. The Constitution established a civil government (no constitutional possibility for a theocracy even is someone wanted to establish one)-You time 3!
Now wait a second... And I am beginning to respect and enjoy your comments here.... but your first point is refuted by your second and third points. It is not stated in 5 words "separation of church and state" but you said yourself that the religions are protected from the State (Point #2) and that there is no chance for theocracy rearing it's ugly head into the country (Slighly loosened point #3). Maybe not directly stated, but stated nonetheless. What do you think?
ID does not get published because it doesn't have anything to say -- at least not yet. For an ID article to be publishable it would have to make some testable assertion. (It already has asserted that the flagellum is irreducibly complex -- an assertion demonstrated to be false).
"Yes" to your first point and "There are no experts" to the second. Penrose is heavily math-oriented, a lot if not most of which is beyond me, but he appears to have high integrity as to interpretations. The physicists continue to bow to the experimental evidence, much to their credit.
No, tpaine, we do not agree on the meaning of the establishment clause. It isn't about what "religious establishments," such as churches and so forth, may or may not do. What the plain language means (or meant to the Framers) was that the government is prohibited from establishing an official state church: The government is barred from "picking a religious sect" and making it the national religion, nor may it favor one creed, confession, or sect over any other.
But even if we were to agree on the meaning you have in mind, that establishment indeed directly and unequivocally refers to churches, religious sects, religious schools, etc., the language says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So on that basis, we would have to take this to mean -- using your interpretation of "establishment" -- that Congress is forbidden to make any law with respect to churches and religious sects, etc.
Parse the language for yourself, tpaine. It is so clear I don't know how it got so muddied up in the public understanding as it has in recent times. I guess we have the ACLU to thank for that.
This is absolutely correct. I have a question for the "separation of church and state" people for which no one has yet been able to give an adequate answer: Why is it that prayer in school was not in dispute for the first ~200 years of our republic (till 1962)? PRECEDENT supports prayer in school, but gives no constitutional justification for the ruling in 1962. So much for precedent! The liberal elites now make our laws! They are re-inventing the Constitution (living breathing document!?) according to their anti-theistic and anti-Christian worldviews. John Adams had it right when he said our Constitution was written "for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." The Constitution is only as good as the moral character of the people who guard it. If it can be reinterpreted and reinvented according to the times and culture, then none of its truths can be considered truths that transcend time, and if none of its truths can transcend time if the culture doesn't like them, then it is relativistic. If it is relativistic, then it is absolutely worthless because it becomes subject to the whims of the cultural elite. So much for truth!
I wonder why did the U.S. Congress publish the first American bible if total separation of church and state was their intent? (It was the Aitken bible in 1780s.)
What I'm driving at, in a round-about way, is that your claim that human beings have an objective value is not supportable by the evidence. You may believe it to be and you may gear your moral actions around this belief, but you're basically starting from an arbitrary First Principle. The rest of the universe does not put much value on human life. Acts of God claim hundreds of thousands of lives per year, so He obviously does not hold us in as high regard as you believe. Other organisms regularly kill human beings, so they obviously don't value human life. Human beings regularly slaughter each other over trivial matters, so they don't place a high value on people.
You value human life highly. I value human life highly. Neither of us likes to see people hurt or killed -- it strikes at the very core of our upbringing. However, as humans go we are the exception rather than the norm. Moslems shoot their women for showing a little ankle; Chinese soldiers threw themselves suicidally at their enemies; Russians regularly resorted to decimation to keep the peasants in line. There is no evidence for an objective value for human life.
You can claim an objective value for people, but you cannot prove it; the available evidence does not fit your theory.
Yes, js1138. That's what Doc said, too. On that basis, it will never be publishable. For how is one going to put the Intelligent Designer on the stage such that he/she/it might be "tested?" It seems the Darwinists are insisting they will settle for nothing less, and it (obviously) cannot happen.
Pretty neat way to ditch the whole issue, no?
Other things were discussed, of course, but with respect to the Establishment Clause, there was no discussion about protecting the STate from the Church. Find me a quote from any founder that was concerned with proteting the state from the church.
The term "separation of church and state" only appears one time - in a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists - and it is taken out of context by all who use it today! Find me another instance where this phrase is used. Cultural elites have twisted this phrase to mean "TOTAL separation of the state and any type of religious overtone". There is a problem though - this is contrary to original intent. Note that the Supreme Court is emblazone with the 10 Commandments. The Aitken bible had the inscription "for use by schools" (hmmm). Also, the Supreme Court declared in 1896 that the United States is a "Christian nation"! (not govt. mind you, but nation). These are all historical and cannot be refuted. History does have truth and it can be twisted into lies, and those lies can then be used to indoctrinate unsuspecting impressionable people who trust what they are taught must be true.
My points are not contradictory. The Constitution sets up a civil govt. But, that civil govt. is based upon judeo-Christian moral principles. It is irrefutable. Anyone familiar with the document will have to admit this.
When it came to religion, they were concerned with protection people (and their churches) from the govt., not the government.
Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern imbecile age
Read this whole thing, please. I think I start out weak and get strong at the end. Will you agree that the Christian religion dominated everything European at this time (200 years ago)? For this reason, a country declaring a freedom of religion (even if it was just freedom for Judeo-Christian beliefs) was revolutionary and radical for its time. The concept is just, and it has simply evolved (ironically) to a more enlightened state. Church is for the home, and nobody can touch it there. People can assemble together and worship anything they want, and nobody can stop them. This is wonderful and just. But the idea of pure religious freedom, logically, means that the state cannot touch it and cannot be touched by it. Much of the Constitution has evolved, and although some of it has become skewed by liberals, this is not one of the issues. Much like the freedoms designated by the Constitution directly or by omission did not apply to anybody but white males. I imagine that betty boop and Alamo Girl are pretty happy about the evolution of Constitutional rights there. Slavery was precedent as well. Nobody can argue that the breaking of that precedent was in spirit with the Constitution, not an opposition to it...
Replies #3591 and #3710 are for you.
Do you think that you would approve with the Baptist Church taking some control of the government? The Unitarian? The spirit of the Constitution, in fact in any free country, religion has to be kept out of government just as government must be kept from religion. This should be the creed of any free man no matter religious or atheistic.
But, that civil govt. is based upon judeo-Christian moral principles.
I think that the Commandments (and the Constitution) were created out of the logic of the human mind. They are moral, and morality can be rightly based on them (minus the ones about idols, name in vain, worship only me, etc, my Biblical knowledge has dropped substantially, sorry).
Considering all the previous discussion of the word evolution that is a remarkable statement, since our equal protection was guaranteed by the addition of the 14th Amendment:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.